I am uncertain what Dr. Blanchard's classification, or accusation, of
a "professional anti-abortionist" even means.
The Elliot Institute is a research organization specializing in
research regarding abortion related complications. Based on interviews
and data collected from thousands of women, I have extensively written on
abortion related risks and have clearly expressed the view that, in my
opinion, the risks associated with abortion outweigh the presumed
benefits.
While many complications of abortion have been clearly documented,
the claimed benefits of abortion are almost entirely based on presumption
or anecdotal evidence. The only positive outcome that has been
consistently measured is reports of "relief," but even this appears to be
largely a temporary reaction and an ambiguous one since researchers have
failed to clarify whether the relief is due to relief that the surgery is
over, relief that the conflicts associated with the crisis pregnancy are
in the past, or relief that one is not raising a child.
In other words, proponents of abortion can at best interpret the
existing research as indicating that abortion has a neutral effect on
women's physical and mental health. To my knowledge, there is little or
no substantive research showing actual improvement in women's lives
following abortion compared to women who carry to term. In contrast,
there are several hundred studies showing that a substantial minority of
women experience significant negative physical and psychological reactions
to abortion.(1)
If the fact that I do not endorse the indiscriminate use of abortion
as a treatment for problem pregnancies is to be construed as a conflict of
interest than journals should begin to ask every researcher who reports
findings about complications associated with radical mastectomy, or
smoking, or any other field to declare a conflict of interest if they view
these surgeries or behaviors with skepticism.
While I am aware of many researchers who favor liberal access to
abortion, many of whom are affiliated with population control
organizations that lobby for expansion of abortion into countries where it
is not yet legal, I have yet to see one of these researchers required to
identify their advocacy of abortion as a means of population control as
conflict of interest in their research reports.
As noted in the paper, the nationally representative data we used for
our analysis is readily available, at a very low cost, from the Center for
Human Resource Research at Ohio State University. Anyone who doubts our
findings can easily obtain the data for their own analysis.
(1) Strahan, TW. Detrimental Effects of Abortion: An annotated
bibliography with commentary. Springfield, IL. Acorn Books 1996.
Rapid Response:
Re: Conflict of interest
I am uncertain what Dr. Blanchard's classification, or accusation, of
a "professional anti-abortionist" even means.
The Elliot Institute is a research organization specializing in
research regarding abortion related complications. Based on interviews
and data collected from thousands of women, I have extensively written on
abortion related risks and have clearly expressed the view that, in my
opinion, the risks associated with abortion outweigh the presumed
benefits.
While many complications of abortion have been clearly documented,
the claimed benefits of abortion are almost entirely based on presumption
or anecdotal evidence. The only positive outcome that has been
consistently measured is reports of "relief," but even this appears to be
largely a temporary reaction and an ambiguous one since researchers have
failed to clarify whether the relief is due to relief that the surgery is
over, relief that the conflicts associated with the crisis pregnancy are
in the past, or relief that one is not raising a child.
In other words, proponents of abortion can at best interpret the
existing research as indicating that abortion has a neutral effect on
women's physical and mental health. To my knowledge, there is little or
no substantive research showing actual improvement in women's lives
following abortion compared to women who carry to term. In contrast,
there are several hundred studies showing that a substantial minority of
women experience significant negative physical and psychological reactions
to abortion.(1)
If the fact that I do not endorse the indiscriminate use of abortion
as a treatment for problem pregnancies is to be construed as a conflict of
interest than journals should begin to ask every researcher who reports
findings about complications associated with radical mastectomy, or
smoking, or any other field to declare a conflict of interest if they view
these surgeries or behaviors with skepticism.
While I am aware of many researchers who favor liberal access to
abortion, many of whom are affiliated with population control
organizations that lobby for expansion of abortion into countries where it
is not yet legal, I have yet to see one of these researchers required to
identify their advocacy of abortion as a means of population control as
conflict of interest in their research reports.
As noted in the paper, the nationally representative data we used for
our analysis is readily available, at a very low cost, from the Center for
Human Resource Research at Ohio State University. Anyone who doubts our
findings can easily obtain the data for their own analysis.
(1) Strahan, TW. Detrimental Effects of Abortion: An annotated
bibliography with commentary. Springfield, IL. Acorn Books 1996.
Competing interests: No competing interests